Posts Tagged ‘Anti Israel Bigotry’

Israel’s ‘moral clarity letter frustrates Islamic-Fascists and radical leftists so-called “activists”

April 16, 2012

Israel’s ‘moral clarity’ letter frustrates Islamic-Fascists and radical leftists so-called “activists”

israel today | Israel News | Anti-Israel

fly-in protest is a bust – israel today
Sunday, April 15, 2012 | Ryan Jones

Anti-Israel fly-in protest 

is a bust

Israel was on

alert Sunday for a planned mass fly-in protest,

or “flytilla,” by foreign anti-Israel activists

protesting the Jewish state’s control of Judea

and Samaria, including the eastern half of

Jerusalem. But by the end of the work day, a mere

27 activists had managed to land in Israel. They

were quickly detained and deported.

The stunt was largely thwarted by Israel

loudly publicizing the fact that it would deny

entry to the activists, insisting that they were

arriving for the sole purpose of provoking

unrest. As a result, most airlines cancelled the

activists’ tickets rather than be billed for

their return flights upon deportation from

Israel. Unable to even reach Israel, hundreds of

the activists demonstrated at an airport in

Paris.

Those who did make it to Israel were presented

an official letter of welcome by Israel’s Foreign

Ministry. The wry letter read:

Dear activist,

We appreciate your choosing to make Israel the

object of your humanitarian concerns. We know

there were many other worthy choices.

You could have chosen to protest they Syrian

regime’s daily savagery against its own people,

which has claimed thousands of lives.

You could have chosen to protest the Iranian

regime’s brutal crackdown on dissent and support

of terrorism throughout the world.

You could have chosen to protest Hamas rule in

Gaza, where terror organizations commit a double

war crime by firing rockets at civilians and

hiding behind civilians.

But instead you chose to protest against

Israel, the Middle East’s sole democracy, where

women are equal, the press criticizes the

government, human rights organizations can

operate freely, religious freedom is protected

for all and minorities do not live in fear.

Therefore we suggest to let you solve first

the real problems of the region, and then come

back and share with us your experience.

Have a nice flight.

The letter was seen as a public relations

victory, as it strongly highlighted the grossly

exaggerated attention paid to Israel and its

conflict with the Palestinian Arabs, a conflict

that pales in comparison with so many other

crises around the world. For

many, it is that gross exaggeration, that

irrational obsession with what “the Jews” are

doing, that marks such schemes as

anti-Semitic.

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsIte

m/tabid/178/nid/23189/language/en-US/Default.aspx

Israel to ‘thank’ fly-in activists in mocking

letter



Jerusalem Post

14 Apr 2012

By HERB KEINON, YAAKOV LAPPIN, TOVAH LAZAROFF



Israel plans to bar entry by some 2,000 activists

from at least 15 different countries, mostly in

Europe, either by preventing them from boarding

their flights or by deporting them once they

arrive.



The activists want to draw attention to Israel’s

practice of barring foreigners it believes could

cause trouble by engaging in pro-Palestinian

activities during their visit.



The letter – drawn up in the Prime Minister’s

Office – noted, that the activists “could have

chosen to protest the Syrian regime’s daily

savagery against its own people, which has

claimed thousands of lives.”



Alternatively, they could have chosen to protest

“the Iranian regime’s brutal crackdown on dissent

and support of terrorism throughout the world.”

Or, if they simply had to come to this part of

the globe, they “could have chosen to protest

Hamas rule in Gaza, where terror organizations

commit a double war crime by firing rockets at

civilians and hiding behind civilians.”



Instead, “you chose to protest against Israel,

the Middle East’s sole democracy, where women are

equal, the press criticizes the government, human

rights organizations can operate freely,

religious freedom is protected for all and

minorities do not live in fear.”



The letter concludes with a suggestion that the

activists first solve “the real problems of the

region” and then “come back and share with us

your experience.”



In an indication that Israel will not let the

protesters in but will instead deport them back

to their countries of origin, the letter ends

with the line: “Have a nice flight.”



Meanwhile, Foreign Ministry officials said

Saturday night that responsibility for dealing

with the flytilla was in the hands of the Public

Security Ministry, which will be in contact with

the consulates of the countries whose nationals

are to be barred from entering the country.



The Foreign Ministry has over the past few weeks

been in discussions with its counterparts in

capitals around the world, explaining Israel’s

position regarding the fly-in and making clear

that those coming to engage in provocative

actions would not be given an entry visa.



Israeli authorities circulated to the airlines

the names of some 1,200 pro-Palestinian activists

expected to participate, in the hope that the

companies would prevent them from boarding.



One official explained that if someone flies into

a country without the necessary visa or is not

given that visa when he or she lands, the

responsibility – and expense – for flying the

person back falls on the airline.



Already on Wednesday, Amnon Shmueli, who heads

the Immigration Authority at Ben- Gurion Airport,

sent a letter to all airlines with a list of

names of the people it believed were planning on

participating in flytilla, according to a

document posted on its website.



The document said, “Due to statements of

pro-Palestinian radicals to arrive on commercial

flights from abroad to disrupt order and confront

security forces at friction points, it was

decided to deny their entry.”



“Attached is a list of passengers that are denied

entry to Israel. In light of the above mentioned,

you are ordered not board them on your flights,”

the letter states.



“Failure to comply with this directive will

result in sanctions against the airlines.”



According to the website, already as early as

Tuesday a foreign visitor from Sweden who entered

Israel from Eilat was asked to sign a pledge not

to be a member of a pro-Palestinian organization,

not to be in contact with any pro-Palestinian

organizations and not to participate in

pro-Palestinian activities.



Public Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch

confirmed Saturday night that Israel had asked

airlines not to board fly-in passengers.



“They acted pretty much accordingly,” he said.



The public security minister, who is in charge of

Israel’s response to the flytilla, said a

passenger plane with activists could land in

Israel as early as Saturday night.



“We’ve started initial preparations tonight,” he

said on Saturday.



“Tomorrow is the main day…. Clear instructions

have been given to police, the interior

minister… to prevent provocations and not allow

disturbances at Ben-Gurion Airport.”



Those identified by Israel as provocateurs who

manage to circumvent the no-fly lists and land in

Israel will be “isolated from the central

airport,” Aharonovitch said.



Activists who get past all of Israel’s measures

“will be arrested if they cause disturbances,” he

added.



Two European airlines, Jet2.com and Lufthansa,

told passengers on Friday that they planned to

comply with Israel’s demands, according to the

Welcome to Palestine website.



Jet2 advised passengers that Israel had denied

them entry and as such they might not be able to

board their flights. Lufthansa informed the

passengers in question that their tickets had

been canceled.



The pro-Palestinian website #Airflotilla2

uploaded a scanned image of one of the tickets

canceled by Lufthansa and reported that the same

notification had been sent to dozens of activists

on Thursday, informing them that their

reservations had been canceled “by order of

Israel.”



Hundreds of unarmed police officers will guard

the airport on Sunday, when anywhere from 500 to

1,000 activists try to land in Israel, according

to police estimates.



Sunday is expected to be one of Israel’s busiest

air travel days, with some 45,000 passengers

landing and taking off from Ben-Gurion.



Central police district chief Cmdr. Bentsi Sao

will oversee the operation, which is aimed at

ensuring routine at the airport.



Palestinian activist Mazin Qumsiyeh, a professor

at Bethlehem University and one of the organizers

of the event, said that Israel was only harming

itself with its “hysterical” reaction.



“Why do they want people to lie to them at the

airport?” he asked. “Why can’t they say they are

coming to visit us in Bethlehem?”



Jerusalem Post staff contributed to this

report.

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPol

itics/Article.aspx?id=266012

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The real racism: Expecting Jews to die meekly [JPost]

October 28, 2011

The real racism: Expecting Jews to die meekly

By MARTIN SHERMAN

10/27/2011 23:00



Into the Fray: Israel needs to once again convey, unapologetically, to the world the rationale for its founding.
div id=”body_val”>
The most accurate way to describe Israel today is as an apartheid state… 3.5 million Palestinians and almost half a million Jews live in the areas Israel occupied in 1967, and yet while these two groups live in the same area, they are subjected to totally different legal systems. The Palestinians are stateless and lack many of the most basic human rights. – Neve Gordon, “Boycott Israel,” Los Angeles Times, August 20, 2009.

Taken from an article by a senior Israeli academic, this excerpt typifies the racist Judeophobic rhetoric that has come to dominate the public discourse on the Israeli- Palestinian conflict.

Sadly it is rhetoric that has been endorsed by many in the Israeli academia and media. Even more disturbing is the complicity — or at least complacency — of Israeli officialdom in allowing it to become the defining feature of this discourse.

Expecting Jews to die meekly

This mode of rhetoric is no less than inciteful, Judeophobic racism, because in effect, it embodies the implicit delegitmization of the right of Jews to defend themselves.

It embodies the implicit expectation that Jews should consent to die meekly. And how can an expectation that Jews die meekly be characterized other than as “inciteful, Judeophobic racism?” For no matter what the measures Israel adopts to protect its citizens from those undisguisedly trying to murder and maim them — because they are Jews — they are widely condemned as “racist,” “disproportionate violence” or even “war crimes/crimes against humanity.”

It matters not whether these measures are administrative decisions or security operations, defensive responses or anticipatory initiatives, punitive retaliations or preemptive strikes. It matters not whether they entail the emplacement of physical barriers to block the infiltration of indiscriminate murderers; the imposition of restrictions to impede their lethal movements; the execution of preventive arrests to foil their deadly intentions; the conduct of targeted killings (with unprecedentedly low levels of collateral damage) to preempt their brutal plans; the launch of military campaigns to prevent the incessant shelling of civilians…

Lip service to Israel’s right to self-defense

The depiction of these measures as arbitrary acts of wrongdoing, whose only motivation is racially driven territorial avarice and discriminatory embitterment of the lives of the Palestinians, distorts reality and disregards context. But far more perturbing, is the moral implication of this condemnation.

For if all endeavors to prevent, protect or preempt are denounced as morally reprehensible, the inevitable conclusion is that they should not be employed. This implies a no less inevitable conclusion: To avoid the morally reprehensible, the Jewish state should — in effect — allow those who would attack its citizens, to do so with total impunity, and with total immunity from retribution.

True, many of Israel’s detractors protest with righteous indignation that they acknowledge that it “has a right to defend itself.” But this is quickly exposed as meaningless lip service, for whenever Israel exercises that allegedly acknowledged right, it is condemned for being excessively heavy-handed.

It makes little difference if Israel imposes a legal maritime blockade to prevent the supply of lethal armaments to Islamist extremists; or if Israeli commandos are forced to use deadly force to prevent themselves from being disemboweled by a frenzied lynch mob; or if, in response to the savage slaughter wrought by Palestinian suicide bombers — which relative to its population, dwarfed the losses on 9/11 — Israel clears the terror-infested and boobytrapped Jenin, using ground troops rather than its air force to minimize Palestinian collateral damage, thus incurring needless casualties of its own.

No matter how murderous the onslaughts initiated by the Palestinians, no matter how blatant the Palestinian brutality, no matter how outrageous the Palestinian provocation, the Israeli response is deemed inappropriate.

Despite the declaration of recognition of some generic abstract right to defend itself and its citizens, it seems that in practice the only “appropriate” response is for Israel to refrain from defending itself.

Exigencies of security

Then there is the reverse racism emblazoned in the subtext of the discourse of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians: The victims of racist hatred are condemned as racist for fending off their racist attackers.

Security barriers are not erected, roadblocks are not put in place, travel restrictions are not enforced as a racist response to Palestinian ethnicity but as a rationale response to Palestinian enmity. To believe otherwise is to fall prey to what Binyamin Netanyahu once called the “reversal of causality.” The blockade of Gaza is a consequence, not a cause, of Hamas’s violence; the West Bank security barrier is the result of, not the reason for, Palestinian terrorism.

If not for the massive carnage at Sbarro pizzeria, at Dizengoff Center, at the Passover Seder in the Park Hotel, there would have been no IDF operation in Jenin in 2002. Without the indiscriminate bombardment of Israeli civilians, there would have been no Cast Lead operation in Gaza in 2009. If pregnant women and ambulances were not used to smuggle explosives into Israeli cities, there would be no need for checkpoints and roadblocks. If Palestinian gunmen would not open fire from vehicles on Israeli families passing by, there would be no need to restrict the movement of Palestinians on certain roads. If Palestinians did not ambush Israeli cars traveling though Palestinian towns, there would be no need to construct special roads for Israelis to bypass those towns.

The outcome of Judeophobic enmity

Of course, the standard Judeophobic response to this will be… “occupation,” that all-purpose, all-weather, one-size-fits-all excuse for every racist Palestinian atrocity perpetrated against the Jews.

According to this morally base and factually baseless contention, all Palestinian violence is an expression of understandable rage and frustration due to years of repressive “occupation” of Palestinian lands.

This claim is as egregious as it is asinine. It must be rejected with the moral opprobrium and the intellectual disdain it so richly deserves.

Indeed, as I have demonstrated in several recent columns, the call for the destruction of the Jewish state was made long before Israel held a square inch of what is now designated as “occupied Palestinian land.” (In fact, the original 1964 Palestinian National Covenant explicitly disavows any sovereign claim to the “West Bank” and Gaza as the Palestinian homeland.) The founding documents of the PLO, Fatah and Hamas are all committed to the destruction of the Jewish state, irrespective of time and regardless of frontiers. This too was the sentiment reiterated by Mahmoud Abbas in his recent UN appearance.

So clearly “Occupation” is not the origin of Palestinian ill-will towards Israel. Quite the reverse. The Israeli presence in Judea, Samaria and Gaza is a direct outcome of Arab ill-will towards Israel, when in 1967 their massive military offensive to destroy Israel failed catastrophically.

It was not Jewish territorial avarice that brought Israel to “the territories” but Arab Judeocidal aggression.

What if there had been no ‘Occupation’?

Even if it can be irrefutably shown that “occupation” is not the origin
of Palestinian hostility, might it is not be possible that elimination
of “occupation” would induce, if not Palestinian amitié, then at least
Palestinian acceptance of Israel? Sadly, all evidence seems to point the
other way. Every time Israel has made tangible efforts to remove
“occupation,” the frenzy of Palestinian terrorism has soared to a higher
crescendo, and forced abandonment or even reversal of these efforts:

• This was the case from 1993 to ’96, when the implementation of the Oslo agreements brought forth a huge wave of suicide bombings.

• This was the case in 2000, when Ehud Barak offered sweeping concessions to
the Palestinians, who responded with a wave of unprecedented terrorism
which continued under Ariel Sharon’s “restraint-is-strength-policy”
until the carnage made military response unavoidable. The result was
Operation Defensive Shield in 2002 that brought the IDF back in force to
the “West Bank,” where calm has been largely maintained ever since.

This was the case in 2005, when Israel withdrew from Gaza and erased every
vestige of “occupation,” and in return received continuing and
escalating violence that culminated in Operation Cast Lead.

Clearly, not only can “occupation” not be attributed as the cause of Palestinian enmity, but attempts to remove — or at least attenuate — it seem only to exacerbate this enmity.

Here intriguing questions arise: What if Israel had never taken over the “West Bank” or had withdrawn
immediately after doing so, transferring control back to Jordan? What
then would have become of the Palestinians and their claims to “national
liberation?” What “occupation” would have then been blamed for their
plight? What territory would have then been the focus of their efforts
to establish their state? These are weighty questions which must await
discussion at some later stage, but merely raising them poses a serious
challenge to the factually flawed conventional wisdom that dominates and
distorts the debate on the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

‘Criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitism’

“Criticism of Israel is not anti-Semitism” is the mantra sounded with Pavlovian regularity by Israel’s detractors. And they are of course right. Criticism of Israel is not necessarily anti- Semitism.

However, the enduring practice of holding the nation-state of the Jews to
discriminatory double standards does makes anti-Semitism an increasingly
plausible explanation for that criticism, an explanation can no longer
be summarily dismissed without persuasive proof to the contrary.

After all, atrocities of ferocity and scale far beyond anything of which
Israel is accused, even by its most vehement detractors, are perpetrated
regularly with hardly a murmur of censure from the international
community. By contrast the slightest hint of any Israeli infringement —
real or imagined — of human rights immediately results in expression of
shock and revulsion in headlines in all major media outlets across the
globe, precipitates emergency sessions of international organizations,
and produces worldwide condemnation, from friend and foe alike.

Of
course, the implication is not that Israel should be judged by the same
criteria as the tyrannies of Sudan or North Korea; or by the bloody
standards of Damascus or Tehran.

The question is, however, why
should it be judged by standards and criteria which are far more
stringent than those applied to the democracies that make up NATO.

For in the Balkans, in Iraq and in Afghanistan they have enforced blockades
and embargoes far more onerous and damaging to civilians than that
imposed on Gaza. They conducted military campaigns far from their
borders that caused far more civilian casualties than Israel has in
campaigns conducted only a few kilometers from the heart of its capital
city…

Yet international outcry has been — at best – muted.

So, while holding the Jewish state to standards demanded of no other nation in the exercise of its right to self-defense may have explanations
other than anti-Semitism (or Judeophobia to be more precise), no really
compelling ones come readily to mind.

The real racism

This brings us back to where we began.

While the Jewish state faces unparalleled threats, and unconditional enmity,
it is continually condemned for acting to meet those threats and to
contend with that enmity — no matter what measures it adopts, no matter
how grave the peril, no matter how severe the provocation.

This then is the real racism that permeates the discourse on the Israel-Palestinian conflict:

• The expectation that the Jews jeopardize their security in order to maintain the viability of manifest falsehoods.


The perverse portrayal of every coercive measure undertaken by the IDF
to protect the lives of Jews against those striving to kill them, merely
because they are Jews, as racially motivated, disproportionate
violence.

• The disingenuous depiction of the inconvenience
caused to Palestinians by these measures as a more heinous evil than the
Jewish deaths they are designed to prevent.

• The attitude that
shedding Jewish blood is more acceptable than the measures required to
prevent it, an element that appears to be becoming increasingly
internalized into the discourse on the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

Israel needs to once again convey, unapologetically, to the world the
rationale for its founding: Jews will no longer die meekly.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=243452

Watching the anti-human-rights of the so-called “Human Rights Watch” when it comes to the Middle East

September 15, 2011

Watching the anti-human-rights of the so-called “Human Rights Watch” when it comes to the Middle East


It is long overdue that this (and others like it) come under scrutiny for being systematically blindly anti-Israel biased, distortion of facts and simply obsessive in singling it out, while covering for Arab-Islamic crimes against humanity. [You know when an orgainaztion is in real trouble, when, even, its founding chairman criticizes it for utter and complete failure].

“Human rights” organizations’ conspiracy-collective war on Israelis’ Human Rights.

It doesn’t matter if its (like the UN) influenced by Arab oil / Lobby, Islamic lobby, Arab “street anger,” or impacted by the powerful mythology of “strong Israel vs. poor weak Arab” – (deriving from a distorted image, naively based on looking at a raw-but-shallow picture of balance-of-armament VS reality, underestimating the Goliath power of “Palestinians” and Hezbollah use of their civilians against cautious and Humane Israel) is the source of it, or if it’s by an individual bigot in charge at HRW.





IN GENERAL


See examples, updates at:

1) CAMERA.org here and here.

2) HonestReporting.com here and here.


HRW Founder Bernstein Starts Advancing Human Rights (AHR)

March 03, 2011

Robert Bernstein, the founder and former chairman of Human Rights Watch who publicly renounced his ties with the organization due to distorted and disproportionate focus on free and open Israel at the expense of the rest of the Middle East — mostly unfree — has just launched a new human rights organization, Advancing Human Rights.


Why the need for a new organization? Bernstein, 88, explains:


Some human rights organizations, like Human Rights Watch, do not condemn incitement to genocide, Arab hate speech being spewed daily in Gaza, particularly, and Saudi textbooks being taught to young children calling Jews “monkeys and pigs.” Hate speech is the precursor to genocide.

http://blog.camera.org/archives/2011/03/hrw_founder_bernstein_starts_a.html


“Human Rights Watch Coverup”
Jerusalem Post
April 13, 2004
By Anne Bayefsky


When it comes to anti-Semitism and anti-Israel bias, Human Rights Watch still has a lot of explaining to do ­ notwithstanding Executive Director Ken Roth’s umbrage at criticism.


Roth, however, volunteers a test of his organization’s reliability when it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict, namely Human Rights Watch’s behavior at the UN’s infamous “anti-racism” conference held in Durban, shortly before 9/11. If the organization’s actions were assailable there, he says, it would make “it easy to reject the objectivity of Human Rights Watch reports on Israeli conduct.”


It is a test that Human Rights Watch fails hands down. I know because I was there as the representative of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists (IAJLJ). Roth himself did not attend.
Just prior to the conference Roth telegraphed his convictions in an interview on US National Public Radio, August 14, 2001, when he said about the pending controversy and the effort to focus attention on Israel: “Clearly Israeli racist practices are an appropriate topic.”
So in the lead-up to Durban, Human Rights Watch fanned the flames of racial intolerance ­ notwithstanding that ‘s citizens are one-quarter Arab and enjoy democratic rights they have nowhere else in the Arab world, while neighboring Arab states are Judenrein.


At Durban one role of Human Rights Watch was to exclude the representative of Jewish lawyers and jurists from over 40 countries. Here’s what happened:
As a representative of the IAJLJ, I was a member of the caucus of international human rights nongovernmental organizations. Human Rights Watch, along with others such as Amnesty International and the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights (renamed Human Rights First), was also a member of this caucus. Together we had a right to vote on the final NGO document, and hours before the last session gathered together to discuss our position.
The draft included egregious statements equating Zionism with racism, and alleging that is an “apartheid” state guilty of “genocide and ethnic cleansing designed to ensure a Jewish state.”


As we arrived at our meeting the chief Durban representative of Human Rights Watch, advocacy director Reed Brody, publicly announced that as a representative of a Jewish group I was unwelcome and could not attend. The views of a Jewish organization, he explained, would not be objective and the decision on how to vote had to be taken in our absence. Not a single one of the other international NGOs objected.


THE HUMAN Rights Watch role at Durban? To inhibit Jewish lawyers and jurists from being fairly represented or defended.


Later that afternoon, my colleague Daniel Lack and I insisted on entering the meeting, but their minds were made up. In the face of the flagrant anti-Semitism all around them the group, including HRW had decided neither to approve nor disapprove of the final declaration, and not to vote.
 
Instead the international NGOs, including HRW planned to introduce an introductory paragraph that would cast the document as a legitimate collection of the “voices of the victims.”


In the evening, as the declaration was considered, a motion was made to delete draft language that had come from the Jewish NGO caucus. The Jewish caucus had proposed including a statement that the demonization of and the targeting of Jews for destruction because of their support for was a form of anti-Semitism.


The vote to delete the Jewish caucus’s proposal succeeded and all Jewish organizations from around the world walked out.


What did Human Rights Watch do? The organization said nothing. It made no move to vote. It stayed. Notwithstanding that the Jewish voices had been silenced, two days later at a press conference, HRW (along with Amnesty International, and the Lawyers Committee/Human Rights First) repeated the claim that the “voices of the victims” had legitimately prevailed at the NGO conference. HRW spokesperson Smita Narula said: “The document gives expression to all voices.”


What else did Human Rights Watch do in Durban? It misrepresented the final outcome to the world press.


AFTER THE fact, Human Rights Watch got nervous about the possible reaction of its many Jewish funders. So the cover-up began.
On September 6, 2001 Human Rights Watch spokespersons Reed Brody and Joel Motley wrote in the Conference News Daily that the NGO declaration “marks a major success… and recognizes the scourge of anti-Semitism.”
They neglected to mention that the declaration had redefined anti-Semitism, changing its meaning from the hatred of Jews to something which included “anti-Arab racism.”


Six months later, in February 2002, Human Rights Watch published an update stating: “What really happened at the World Conference Against Racism in Durban? The conference we participated in was completely different from the one covered in American newspapers.”
What else did Human Rights Watch do after Durban? It denied what happened there.


As for Roth’s claim of the organization’s objectivity in reporting on governments throughout the region, one need look no further than its inability ­ despite an annual budget of $22 million ­ to produce a specific report on human rights abuses in a country like Libya, or the relative paucity of attention over the years given to states with appalling human rights records like Saudi Arabia and Syria, as compared to Israel.


So there should be no surprise when HRW wrongly describes as violating international legal norms, for example, by labeling the killing of someone like Sheikh Ahmed Yassin or Ismail Abu Shanab an “assassination” or “liquidation.”


International law does not protect all combatants from being targeted before judicial process, or grant them immunity from military operations when they use civilians as human shields.


Having the courage to speak out against the tide of hate directed at and the Jewish people is not one of the strengths of Human Rights Watch.
When will this leading international human rights NGO stop believing it has to earn its stripes by demonizing Israel, or that to stay in business it must avoid criticizing Israel’s enemies?
The writer, a professor at York University in , is an international lawyer and a member of the Governing Board of UN Watch, based in Geneva.
http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article.php?id=908


Op-Ed Contributor – Rights Watchdog, Lost in the Mideast – NYTimes …
By ROBERT L. BERNSTEIN. Published: October 19, 2009. AS the founder of Human Rights Watch, its active chairman for 20 years and now founding chairman …The organization is expressly concerned mainly with how wars are fought, not with motivations. To be sure, even victims of aggression are bound by the laws of war and must do their utmost to minimize civilian casualties. Nevertheless, there is a difference between wrongs committed in self-defense and those perpetrated intentionally.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/opinion/20bernstein.html

Pollak: Human Rights Watch is Biased Against Israel – WSJ.com
Jul 30, 2009 – Double Standards and Human Rights Watch
The organization displays a strong bias against Israel
By NOAH POLLAK
Over the past two weeks, Human Rights Watch has been embroiled in a controversy over a fund raiser it held in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. At that gathering, Middle East director Sarah Leah Whitson pledged the group would use donations to “battle . . . pro-Israel pressure groups.”

As criticism of her remark poured in, Ms. Whitson responded by saying that the complaint against her was “fundamentally a racist one.” And Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, declared that “We report on Israel. Its supporters fight back with lies and deception.”

The facts tell a different story. From 2006 to the present, Human Rights Watch’s reports on the Israeli-Arab conflict have been almost entirely devoted to condemning Israel, accusing it of human rights and international law violations, and demanding international investigations into its conduct. It has published some 87 criticisms of Israeli conduct against the Palestinians and Hezbollah, versus eight criticisms of Palestinian groups and four of Hezbollah for attacks on Israel. (It also published a small number of critiques of both Israel and Arab groups, and of intra-Palestinian fighting.)

It was during this period that more than 8,000 rockets and mortars were fired at Israeli civilians by Palestinian terrorist groups in Gaza. Human Rights Watch’s response? In November 2006 it said that the Palestinian Authority “should stop giving a wink and a nod to rocket attacks.” Two years later it urged the Hamas leadership “to speak out forcefully against such [rocket] attacks . . . and bring to justice those who are found to have participated in them.”

In response to the rocket war and Hamas’s violent takeover of Gaza in June 2007, Israel imposed a partial blockade of Gaza. Human Rights Watch then published some 28 statements and reports on the blockade, accusing Israel in highly charged language of an array of war crimes and human rights violations. One report headline declared that Israel was “choking Gaza.” Human Rights Watch has never recognized the difference between Hamas’s campaign of murder against Israeli civilians and Israel’s attempt to defend those civilians. The unwillingness to distinguish between aggression and self-defense blots out a fundamental moral fact—that Hamas’s refusal to stop its attacks makes it culpable for both Israeli and Palestinian casualties.

Meanwhile, Egypt has also maintained a blockade on Gaza, although it is not even under attack from Hamas. Human Rights Watch has never singled out Egypt for criticism over its participation in the blockade.

The organization regularly calls for arms embargoes against Israel and claims it commits war crimes for using drones, artillery and cluster bombs. Yet on Israel’s northern border sits Hezbollah, which is building an arsenal of rockets to terrorize and kill Israeli civilians, and has placed that arsenal in towns and villages in hopes that Lebanese civilians will be killed if Israel attempts to defend itself. The U.N. Security Council has passed resolutions demanding Hezbollah’s disarmament and the cessation of its arms smuggling. Yet while Human Rights Watch has criticized Israel’s weapons 15 times, it has criticized Hezbollah’s twice.

In the Middle East, Human Rights Watch does not actually function as a human-rights organization. If it did, it would draw attention to the plight of Palestinians in Arab countries. In Lebanon, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians are warehoused in impoverished refugee camps and denied citizenship, civil rights, and even the right to work. This has received zero coverage from the organization.

In 2007, the Lebanese Army laid siege to the Nahr al-Bared Palestinian refugee camp for over three months, killing hundreds. Human Rights Watch produced two anemic press releases. At this very moment, Jordan is stripping its Palestinians of citizenship without the slightest protest from the organization. Unfortunately, Human Rights Watch seems only to care about Palestinians when they can be used to convince the world that the Jewish state is actually a criminal state.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204619004574318344040299638.html

TNR publishes “Minority Report: Human Rights Watch fights a civil war over Israel”
April 28, 2010   Richard Landes
The New Republic has just published a major piece on Human Rights Watch and their deeply disturbed relationship to Israel. Its a case study of demopaths and dupes, human rights complex, masochistic omnipotence syndrome, and the left-jihadi alliance. Below, a few choice passages.


Minority Report
Human Rights Watch fights a civil war over Israel.
Benjamin Birnbaum April 27, 2010 | 12:00 am


[snip]


With Palestinian suicide bombings reaching a crescendo in early 2002, precipitating a full-scale Israeli counterterrorist campaign across the West Bank, HRW’s Middle East and North Africa division (MENA) issued two reports (and myriad press releases) on Israeli misconduct—including one on the Israel Defense Forces’ assault on terrorist safe havens in the Jenin refugee camp. That report—which, to HRW’s credit, debunked the widespread myth that Israel had carried out a massacre—nevertheless said there was “strong prima facie evidence” that Israel had “committed grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions,” irking the country’s supporters, who argued that the IDF had in fact gone to great lengths to spare Palestinian civilians. (The decision not to launch an aerial bombardment of the densely populated area, and to dispatch ground troops into labyrinthine warrens instead, cost 23 Israeli soldiers their lives—crucial context that HRW ignored.) It would take another five months for HRW to release a report on Palestinian suicide bombings—and another five years for it to publish a report addressing the firing of rockets and mortars from Gaza, despite the fact that, by 2003, hundreds had been launched from the territory into Israel. (HRW did issue earlier press releases on both subjects.)


In the years to come, critics would accuse HRW of giving disproportionate attention to Israeli misdeeds. According to HRW’s own count, since 2000, MENA has devoted more reports to abuses by Israel than to abuses by all but two other countries, Iraq and Egypt. That’s more reports than those on Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Syria, Algeria, and other regional dictatorships. (When HRW includes press releases in its count, Israel ranks fourth on the list.) And, if you count only full reports—as opposed to “briefing papers,” “backgrounders,” and other documents that tend to be shorter, less authoritative, and therefore less influential—the focus on the Jewish state only increases, with Israel either leading or close to leading the tally. There are roughly as many reports on Israel as on Iran, Syria, and Libya combined.


HRW officials acknowledge that a number of factors beyond the enormity of human rights abuses go into deciding how to divide up the organization’s attentions: access to a given country, possibility for redress, and general interest in the topic. “I think we tend to go where there’s action and where we’re going to get reaction,” rues one board member. “We seek the limelight—that’s part of what we do. And so, Israel’s sort of like low-hanging fruit.”


[snip]
[Bernstien and] Edith Everett, a member of both the MENA advisory committee and the HRW board, a former stockbroker, and a philanthropist who has donated millions to aid Druze Arabs in Israel, eventually came to believe that their concerns were falling on deaf ears. For Everett, the 2006 Israel-Lebanon war was a turning point. “Participating on the board became most difficult since [that war],” she recalls. While Everett agreed with some of HRW’s critiques—on Israel’s use of cluster munitions, for example—she took issue with many of the organization’s conclusions, including its reporting on human shield use in Lebanon. (In a 2007 report, HRW insisted that Hezbollah fighters did not shield themselves and their weapons among the local civilian population on a widespread basis.) For a long time, Everett had felt there was a healthy exchange about these issues inside HRW, but that had begun to change. “I felt in recent times there was less of a dialogue,” she says. “It seemed to me that there was a commitment to a point of view—that Israel’s the bad guy here.”


[snip]


Robert James—a businessman, World War II veteran, and member of the MENA advisory committee who has been involved with HRW almost since its inception—calls the group “the greatest NGO since the Red Cross,” but argues that it is chronically incapable of introspection. “Bob is bringing this issue up on Israel,” he says. “But Human Rights Watch has a more basic problem. … They cannot take criticism.”


[snip]


Critics have pointed out that a number of Whitson’s colleagues in MENA—such as Joe Stork, who came to HRW after decades as a leader of the left-wing Middle East Research and Information Project, where he was part of an editorial collective that ran an extremely anti-Israel journal—arrived at the organization with backgrounds in the pro-Palestinian movement. Sid Sheinberg argues that the mere appearance of a biased jury at MENA ill-serves HRW. “Is it smart to have a number of people about which questions can be asked—in either direction?” he says. But, when I asked Whitson about this critique—and, specifically, about a former researcher on Israel who, before starting at HRW, wrote pro-Palestinian dispatches from the West Bank and Gaza describing Israeli soldiers as “protected by arrogance and hatred and a state and an army and the world’s superpower”—she said she didn’t see a problem with this situation. “For people who apply for jobs to be the researcher in Israel-Palestine, it’s probably going to be someone who’s done work on Israel-Palestine with a human rights background,” she explained. “And guess what? People who do work with a human rights background on Israel-Palestine tend to find that there are a lot of Israeli abuses. And they tend to become human rights activists on the issue.” For his part, HRW program director Iain Levine, who oversees the organization’s 16 divisions, acknowledges that people from many divisions—and not just MENA—arrive from “solidarity backgrounds,” but insists that, “when they come to the door of this organization, they park those things behind.”


Whether or not Whitson has done so, she clearly favors a tough approach toward the Jewish state. She has argued that, far from being too harsh toward Israel, HRW is actually too lenient. “[B]elieve me,” she wrote in an e-mail to a MENA advisory committee member, “on israel in particular, we are overly cautious and extremely kid-gloved because of the harassment we endure.” Less definitive—but still arguably revealing—evidence about Whitson’s politics can be found in her opinion of Norman Finkelstein, the activist and avowed Hezbollah supporter who has likened Israel to Nazi Germany. The two became acquainted years ago, and she brought him to HRW to discuss his 2005 book Beyond Chutzpah. (“He had a very mixed reception,” she remembers. “I think people did not find his style particularly persuasive.”) In late 2006, when Finkelstein launched a letter-writing campaign demanding that HRW officials apologize for a press release critical of Palestinian officials (which they eventually did), one HRW observer e-mailed Whitson to share thoughts on Finkelstein’s over-the-top rhetoric. Whitson replied: “I agree w/ u that norm undermines himself and his cause w/ the language he uses, and his anger sometimes gets the better of him and his brilliant mind and generous spirit. I continue to have tremendous respect and admiration for him, because as you probably know, making Israeli abuses the focus of one’s life work is a thankless but courageous task that may well end up leaving all of us quite bitter.”


[snip]


Bernstein also raised some of his concerns with then-HRW board member Richard Goldstone, who would go on to write the U.N.’s much-maligned report on the Gaza war. There are few more reviled figures in Israel right now than Goldstone, but even he sympathized with Bernstein on certain points, such as the politicized nature of the U.N. Human Rights Council, which, after being created in 2006, had directed its first nine condemnations at Israel. In March 2008, barely a year before he accepted UNHRC’s mandate to investigate the Gaza war, he told Bernstein that he thought the body’s performance had been hopeless and expressed ambivalence as to whether HRW should continue appearing before it.


He also agreed with Bernstein that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s increasingly aggressive anti-Israel rhetoric, in combination with his threatening policies, was an issue worthy of HRW’s attention. Goldstone pushed Roth to address it, but to no avail. (When I asked Roth in a February interview at his office about HRW’s refusal to take a position on Ahmadinejad’s threats against Israel, including his famous call for Israel to be “wiped off the map,” Roth quibbled about the way the statement had been translated in the West—“there was a real question as to whether he actually said that”—then told me that it was not HRW’s place to render judgments on such rhetoric: “Let’s assume it is a military threat. We don’t take on governments’ military threats just as we don’t take on aggression, per se. We look at how they behave. So, we wouldn’t condemn a military threat just as we wouldn’t condemn an invasion—we would look at how the government wages the war.” Whitson, who sat in on the interview, offered her two cents: “You know, that statement was also matched by Hillary Clinton saying that the Iranian regime should be destroyed or wiped off the map. Again, so, very similar statements, side by side, close in time.” For his part, Goldstone told TNR that he eventually came around to the view this was not an issue HRW should take up.)
http://www.theaugeanstables.com/2010/04/28/tnr-publishes-minority-report-human-rights-watch-fights-a-civil-war-over-israel/


____________



THE SOROS EFFECT


Obama-Sponsor Gives $100M to Anti-Israeli ‘Human Rights Watch’
 – Sep 13, 2010 – Anti-Israeli secular-Jewish billionaire George Soros has pledged $100 million to the New York-based Human Rights Watch (HRW),
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/139596


Human Rights Watch sells out to Soros–Gerald Steinberg – NYPOST.com
Sep 13, 2010 – Selling Out to Soros
Rights group’s dubious recordBy GERALD STEINBERG


Last Updated: 6:20 PM, September 13, 2010
Posted: 11:44 PM, September 12, 2010


In accepting a huge grant from George Soros, Human Rights Watch has spurned the public advice (and warning) offered nearly a year ago by its founder Robert Bernstein. Rather than grapple with the serious problems of credibility and bias, HRW Executive Director Kenneth Roth has cemented relations with Soros — a partisan ideologue who also supports Moveon.org, a controversial advocacy group.


Bernstein severely criticized HRW in a New York Times oped. To “resurrect itself as a moral force in the Middle East and throughout the world,” he warned, the organization must return “to its founding mission and the spirit of humility that animated it.” In its earlier days, he noted, “to create clarity in human rights,” HRW aimed to “draw a sharp line between the democratic and nondemocratic worlds.”


Soros: His $100 million donation to Human Rights Watch will make up for grants lost because of recent scandals. Over the years, HRW lost its moral compass and substituted ideology and an Israel-obsessed agenda. Bernstein was trying to awaken the group’s leaders to the decayed state of what was once a human-rights superpower.


Instead, Roth has opted to accept Soros’ $100 million grant — which should offset nicely the income lost from core donors who’ve walked away in the wake of a host of scandals. It won’t, however, address the root problems.


In May 2009, HRW launched a fund-raising drive in Saudi Arabia, using its anti-Israel record to solicit funds from “prominent members of Saudi society.” That September, HRW “senior military analyst” Marc Garlasco was “outed” as an avid collector of Nazi memorabilia — a troubling hobby for the main author of a number of HRW reports that accused Israel of “war crimes” and other violations.


Add to this the recent work by NGO Monitor, the watchdog group that I lead, and others on the severe ideological biases at HRW’s Middle East and North Africa (MENA) division. The systematic research in NGO Monitor’s report and articles in The New Republic and the Sunday Times detail the severe ideological biases of MENA director Sarah Leah Whitson and deputy director Joe Stork.


Both Whitson and Stork came to HRW with backgrounds in pro-Palestinian political activities, and continue to promote their anti-Israel political agendas through their “human rights” work.


Whitson was and remains an advocate of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. In July 2009, she referred to Israel’s “system of apartheid.” Stork’s publications in the Middle East Research and Information Project from the 1980s and 1990s focus on attacking Zionism, Israel and American “imperialism” in the Middle East, while promoting the Palestinian narrative.


This is further evidence of Bernstein’s conclusion that HRW is “helping those who wish to turn Israel into a pariah state.”


The group has relentlessly promoted the UN-commissioned report by one of its former board members, Richard Goldstone — a report that reflects the same biases and dubious research practices as so many recent HRW papers. In 2009, HRW’s 34 pro-Goldstone publications outnumbered its documents on all the countries in the Middle East except Israel and Iran.


The bias is indisputable: HRW’s publications on “Israel and the Occupied Territories” made up 28 percent of its total Mideast output in 2009.


Which makes it a fine fit for George Soros, whose own biases are well-established. In the Middle East, for example, his Open Society Institute exclusively supports advocacy groups that campaign internationally to undermine the elected governments of Israel — organizations such as Adalah, Peace Now, Breaking the Silence, Gisha and Yesh Din.


In extending his control over HRW, Soros seeks to increase its staff by 40 percent, reposition it as a major international player and restore its influence as an arbiter on universal human rights. But while his grant will alleviate the crisis caused by HRW’s declining income, it only deepens the moral crisis.


Only by changing the organization’s hiring practices, research priorities, methodologies and biases — especially at MENA — can Human Rights Watch recover its image as the “gold standard” of human-rights groups.


Gerald Steinberg is president of NGO Monitor, a Jerusalem-based research institution, and a professor of political science at Bar Ilan Uni versity
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/selling_out_to_soros_iYfn7YXaZg8xEFCp5iEcCJ


_____________



EXPLODING CRITICISM IN THE WAKE OF CRITICIZING ISRAEL, WHILE ISLAMIC-HEZBOLLAH DELIBERATELY CAUSES CIVILIAN DEATHS IN LEBANON (2006)


First Word: What is ‘Human Rights Watch’ watching – Jerusalem Post
 –  ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ
08/24/2006 16:48


Many former supporters of the organization have become alienated by its obsessive focus on Israel.


When it comes to Israel and its enemies, Human Rights Watch cooks the books about facts, cheats on interviews, and puts out predetermined conclusions that are driven more by their ideology than by evidence. These are serious accusations, and they are demonstrably true. Consider the following highly publicized “conclusion” reached by Human Rights Watch about the recent war in Lebanon between Hizbullah and Israel: “Human Rights Watch found no cases in which Hizbullah deliberately used civilians as shields to protect them from retaliatory IDF attack.” No cases! Anyone who watched even a smattering of TV during the war saw with their own eyes direct evidence of rockets being launched from civilian areas. But not Human Rights Watch.


How could an organization, which claims to be objective, have been so demonstrably wrong about so central a point in so important a war? Could it have been an honest mistake? I don’t think so. Despite its boast that “Human Rights Watch has interviewed victims and witnesses of attacks in one-on-one settings, conducted on-site inspections and collected information from hospitals, humanitarian groups, and government agencies,” it didn’t find one instance in which Hizbullah failed to segregate its fighters from civilians. Nor apparently did HRW even ask the Israelis for proof of its claim that Hizbullah rockets were being fired from behind civilians, and that Hizbullah fighters were hiding among civilians. Its investigators interviewed Arab “eyewitnesses” and monitored “information from public sources including the Israeli government statements.” Human Rights Watch ignored credible news sources, such as The New York Times and The New Yorker. “Hizbullah came to Ain Ebel to shoot its rockets,” said Fayad Hanna Amar, a young Christian man, referring to his village. “They are shooting from between our houses.”
Mr. Amar said Hizbullah fighters in groups of two and three had come into Ain Ebel, less than a mile from Bint Jbail, where most of the fighting has occurred. They were using it as a base to shoot rockets, he said, and the Israelis fired back. – Sabrina Tavernise, “Christians Fleeing Lebanon Denounce Hizbullah,” The New York Times, July 28, 2006. Near the hospital, a mosque lay in ruins. A man approached and told me that he was a teacher at the Hariri school. I asked him why he thought the Israelis had hit a mosque, and he said, simply, “It was a Hizbullah mosque.” A younger man came up to me and, when we were out of earshot of others, said that Hizbullah had kept bombs in the basement of the mosque, but that two days earlier a truck had taken the cache away. – Jon Lee Anderson, “The Battle for Lebanon,” The New Yorker, August 8, 2006. Even if the location of UN posts were known to Israeli commanders, that doesn’t rule out the possibility that Hizbullah fighters used one as a shield from which to unleash fire. They’ve done so in the past, says Maj.-Gen. Lewis MacKenzie (ret’d.), who witnessed the technique while on peacekeeping assignments in the area. “It’s the same as if you set up your weapons systems beside a mosque or a church or a hospital.” – Carlie Gillis, “Diplomacy Under Fire,” MacLean’s, August 7, 2006.
The surgeon led a group of journalists over what remained: mangled debris, shredded walls and a roof punched through by an Israeli shell. “Look what they did to this place,” Dr. Fatah said, shaking his head. “Why in the world would the Israelis target a hospital?” The probable answer was found a few hours later in a field nearby. Hidden in the tall grass were the burned remnants of a rocket-launcher.


Confronted with the evidence, Dr. Fatah admitted his hospital could have been used as a site from which to fire rockets into Israel. – Sonia Verma, “Hizbullah’s Deadly Hold on Heartland,” National Post, August 5, 2006. [Samira] Abbas said, she heard from relatives that her house in Bint Jbeil had been destroyed. She said Hizbullah fighters had gathered in citrus groves about 500 yards from her home. – Mohamad Bazzi, “Mideast Crisis – Farewell to a Soldier; Reporting from Lebanon; Running Out of Places to Run,” Newsday, July 28, 2006 “What that means is, in plain English, ‘We’ve got Hizbullah fighters running around in our positions, taking our positions here and then using us for shields and then engaging the (Israeli Defense Forces),'” said [Lewis] MacKenzie, who led Canadian peacekeepers in Bosnia. – Steven Edwards, “UN contradicts itself over Israeli attack,” CanWest News Service, July 27, 2006. It was also reported that Hizbullah fired from the vicinity of five UN positions at Alma Ash Shab, At Tiri, Bayt Yahoun, Brashit, and Tibnin. – United Nations interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), Naqoura, July 28, 2006 (Press Release).
While these pictures have escaped the ravaged country, other images and footage taken by local newspaper and television teams are routinely seized by armed Hizbullah fighters at road blocks. In one image a group of fighters, including youths, are preparing to fire an anti-aircraft gun just metres from an apartment block with laundry sheets drying on a balcony.
Others show a Hizbullah fighter armed with a nickel-plated AK47 rifle guarding no-go zones after Israeli blitzes. Another depicts the remnants of a Hizbullah Katyusha rocket in the middle of a residential block, blown up in an Israeli air attack. The Melbourne man who smuggled the shots out of Beirut told yesterday how he was less than 400m from the block when it was obliterated. “Hizbullah came in to launch their rockets, then within minutes the area was blasted by Israeli jets,” he said. “Until the Hizbullah fighters arrived, it had not been touched by the Israelis. Then it was devastated. “After the attacks they didn’t even allow the ambulances or the Lebanese Army to come in until they had cleaned the area, removing their rockets and hiding other evidence The fighters used trucks, driven into residential areas, as launch pads for the rockets, he said. Another image shows a line of decimated trucks sitting behind a 5m crater.
The tourist who smuggled the images back to Melbourne said the trucks had been carrying rockets. The release of the images comes as Hizbullah fighters face increasing censure for using innocent civilians as “human shields.” – Chris Tinkler, “Revealed: How Hizbullah puts the innocent at risk; They don’t care,” Sunday Mail (Australia), July 30, 2006.


HOW COULD Human Rights Watch have ignored – or more likely suppressed – this evidence from so many different sources? The only reasonable explanation is that they wanted there to be no evidence of Hizbullah’s tactic of hiding behind civilians. So they cooked the books to make it come out that way.


Even after the fighting ended and all the reports of Hizbullah hiding among civilians were published, HRW chief Kenneth Roth essentially repeated the demonstrably false conclusions that “in none of those cases was Hizbullah anywhere around at the time of the attack.” So committed is Human Rights Watch to its predetermined conclusions that it refused to let the facts, as reported by objective sources, get in its way. Many former supporters of Human Rights Watch have become alienated from the organization, because of, in the words of one early supporter, “their obsessive focus on Israel.” Within the last month, virtually every component of the organized Jewish community, from secular to religious, liberal to conservative, has condemned Human Rights Watch for its bias. Roth and his organization’s willful blindness when it comes to Israel and its enemies have completely undermined the credibility of a once important human rights organization.


Human Rights Watch no longer deserves the support of real human rights advocates. Nor should its so-called reporting be credited by objective news organizations.
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=32731


Human Rights Watch: Irrelevant, Immoral on Mideast Conflict
By Abraham H. Foxman
National Director of the Anti-Defamation League 
This article originally appeared in The New York Sun on August 2, 2006 


Human Rights Watch has come out with a stinging attack on Israel for its actions in the conflict against Hezbollah, calling the tragedy in Qana a “war crime.”


Since Human Rights Watch is not an organization that has ignored human rights issues in the Arab world — it has done studies on such issues as human rights violations in Egypt and suicide bombings — what the organization says is given much weight and credibility in certain circles.


The truth is, however, that the overwhelming thrust of Human Rights Watch work regarding Israel and the Arab world falls on Israel. Included was a rush to judgment in its accusation that Israel in Jenin had committed war crimes in seeking out suicide bombers, as well as the fact that in one year (2004), according to NGO Monitor, of 33 HRW documents dealing with Israel, 25 were critical of the Jewish State.


More significantly, there are questions about HRW’s broader perspective in its work in the Middle East. Kenneth Roth falls back on technical interpretations to justify what his organization criticizes and what it doesn’t. He says that it doesn’t go into the cause of war. He doesn’t want to talk about the intentions of various parties. He doesn’t want to look at the larger picture because, he claims, all of this would undermine the neutral posture that gives his organization credibility.


More than any specific criticism, it is this explanation of what HRW is about that is so problematic. First, he inappropriately compares his organization in this respect to the Red Cross, but that body has a very different purpose. HRW, by its reports and statements, has a major impact on political judgments.


Far more important is that his explanation of HRW’s perspective — at least as it applies to the conflict of Israel and the Arab world — leads inevitably to the conclusion that HRW is either irrelevant or immoral, or maybe both. On one level, his explanations of all the factors that don’t come into play when doing analyses and passing judgment should lead to the conclusion that they truly aren’t relevant to the fundamental issues of peace, war, and justice that are embodied in a conflict such as this. If the intentions of Syria and Iran are not to be examined, if the takeover of part of a country by a terrorist group committed to the destruction of Israel is not something important, if the continuous flow of rockets, launchers and other weapons from Iran and Syria to an illegitimate group is not worthy of consideration, then ultimately why should anyone take seriously what Human Rights Watch has to say?


On a deeper level, one can conclude that despite painting itself as a great moral arbiter, in fact Human Rights Watch’s approach to these problems is immorality at the highest level. Let’s remember that Israel has been able to survive and prosper in a region where it has been surrounded by neighbors, close and far, who have been committed to Israel’s destruction for five decades, because of one reason: its strength and power of deterrence.


The State of Israel, which emerged out of the ashes of the Holocaust, understood early on that it must be able to convince its enemies that attacking the tiny Jewish State would be a big mistake. Israel had to make clear to the Arabs that they would be hurt far, far more than the pain they could inflict. In other words, without Israel hitting back (not in an “eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth” fashion which Mr. Roth cited and is a classic anti-Semitic stereotype about Jews) but in a much stronger way, Israel would have been destroyed long ago.


The moral issue, the human rights issue that overrides everything else in this conflict is that if Hezbollah, Syria and Iran don’t understand that they will pay an overwhelming price for these rocket attacks on Israel, then eventually the rockets will be armed with chemical weapons and the warheads with nuclear weapons. In other words, a second Holocaust would be in the works.


So yes, Israel is striking very hard at Hezbollah and the infrastructure that allows it to operate and to receive weapons from Iran and Syria. And yes, there are tragically civilian casualties. Israel must do everything in its power to limit these casualties. But it is Hezbollah that has cynically created a dilemma for Israel by embedding their missiles not only in civilian areas, but literally in civilian households. The dilemma for Israel was: should it be so careful to avoid civilian casualties — for its own sake, for the sake of the Lebanese people and their attitudes toward Israel, and for world opinion — that Israel would not effectively destroy the missile threat that was turning northern Israel into a hell for its residents? Or, should Israel strike at Hezbollah with significant force, inevitably producing civilian casualties because of the placement of missiles, which would turn the people of Lebanon and the world against Israel? Israel has sought its way through this minefield. It has tried both to protect its people and to limit civilian casualties.


It is no accident that Human Rights Watch gets it wrong or has a habit of rushing to judgment as it did in Jenin and as it did in Qana. If one sees military activity by Israel in a vacuum, ignoring the threats to its security and existence, ignoring the intentions and growing capabilities of its enemies, ignoring the cynical actions of its foes which seek either to hurt Israel and its citizens on the ground or to make Israel look bad in the eyes of the world, then, of course, Israel will look like the neighborhood bully and will be accused of all kinds of things.


I would therefore recommend that Human Rights Watch be viewed for what it is, at least when it comes to the great struggle in the Middle East that may determine not only the future of the State of Israel but of mankind itself: as irrelevant or immoral.
http://www.adl.org/NR/exeres/EB055C60-4506-
4FAF-98A0-49AEAAC82227,213018C9-567C-418C-BDEA-1CBDA8F58810,frameless.htm


Roth’s False God
Editorial of The New York Sun | August 8, 2006


After The New York Sun ran an editorial and two op-ed pieces taking Human Rights Watch to task for anti-Israel bias, the organization’s executive director, Kenneth Roth, has finally found it in himself to denounce Hezbollah for placing troops and weapons near Lebanese civilians. And to acknowledge, for the first time, that the use of ambulances by Palestinian groups to transport weapons or suicide bombers is “a clear humanitarian violation.” We’re tempted to congratulate Mr. Roth. Too bad it had to be wrung out of him.


Call us optimists, but we still hold out hope that Mr. Roth will abandon his view, expressed in a letter to the editor printed in the adjacent column, that the Israeli government defending itself from Islamist terrorist aggression is engaged in “extremist interpretations of religious doctrine” like the terrorists themselves. Maybe in his next letter to us he’ll finally concede, too, that, as widely reported, the Iranian military is in Lebanon. Maybe he’ll concede that the fact that Hezbollah was not “in sight” is no evidence they were not there. Until then, Mr. Roth and his donors, staff, and board of directors should be aware that the American Jewish community recognizes with full clarity what Mr. Roth and Human Rights Watch are up to. It is unmistakable.


The three main religious movements of American Jewry — Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform — agree, for once. A spokesman for the Agudath Israel of America, an Orthodox group, Rabbi Avi Shafran, called Mr. Roth’s statements “loathsome” and likened him to Mel Gibson, the actor who, unlike Mr. Roth, at least had the decency to apologize for his outburst. The executive vice president of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism, Rabbi Jerome Epstein, said the position of Mr. Roth and Human Rights Watch is “so biased and outrageous it is hard to take it seriously.” The national director of the Anti-Defamation League, Abraham Foxman, said Mr. Roth deployed “a classic anti-Semitic stereotype,” and said Human Rights Watch is “irrelevant or immoral.” A spokesman for the Union for Reform Judaism, Emily Grotta, said, “Abe Foxman has been speaking out about this recently and we agree with what he has been saying.”


The executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Malcolm Hoenlein, told us of Human Rights Watch that he was “disturbed by its apparent bias.” The president of the Zionist Organization of America, Morton Klein, said Mr. Roth of Human Rights Watch “is not only naïve, but shows his hatred toward Jews and Israel is greater than his hatred of Islamist terror.” The general counsel of the American Jewish Congress, Marc Stern, called Human Rights Watch’s position “a problem,” and said, “to elevate a mistake to the level of war crime is outrageous.” A spokesman for the American Jewish Committee, Kenneth Bandler, said the statements by Human Rights Watch and Mr. Roth “display a real lack of understanding.”


American Jewry stands with the Israeli government on the point. Israel’s ambassador to Canada, Alan Baker, a former legal adviser to Israel’s foreign ministry, a few months back told us of Human Rights Watch, after the organization wrote to President Bush calling for an end to all American aid to Israel, “They’ve lost their credibility.” Even Human Rights Watch’s founding chairman, Robert Bernstein, who led the organization from 1979 to 1997, is dismayed and pained at the stance the group he founded has been taking against the Jewish state, according to several individuals to whom Mr. Bernstein confided his discomfort with the organization he helped found. Mr. Bernstein declined to comment.


Mr. Roth sneers at “religious doctrine” and “Biblical injunctions” from the Torah. In an earlier letter to this page, he referred to them as the “morality of some more primitive moment.” He belittles any distinction between a terrorist group whose goal is to kill Jews, eradicate Israel, and impose Islamist law worldwide, and a pluralist sovereign state, like Israel, that apologizes and investigates when it kills civilians in the course of trying to protect its civilians and borders from the terrorist group. Human Rights Watch recently called on America to cease immediately arms transfers to Israel. If Mr. Roth’s Yale Law School degree and international law dictate cutting off Israel’s arms as it is under assault by a terrorist group out to destroy it and deliberately kill its civilians, we’ll take the Bible any day. One doesn’t need a Yale Law School degree or expertise in international law to know Israel is different from the terrorists, just a basic moral compass.


Mr. Roth’s own moral compass seems to go haywire whenever Israel is involved. More reputable scholars of international law, like Orde Kittrie writing in Saturday’s Wall Street Journal, disagree with Human Rights Watch’s conclusions. So do President Bush and a consensus in Congress and among the American public, which have supported Israel’s right to defend itself. Siding with Human Rights Watch in criticizing Israel have been the governments of Iran and Communist China, two of the worst human rights abusers of them all.


Mr. Roth may send us another letter, conceding another point or two along the way. Or not. But this is about more than Mr. Roth and his organization. The moral equivalence that has infected him and his organization has, sadly, spread far on much of the left, from the United Nations to the International Red Cross and Amnesty International and the editorialists of the New York Times, who yesterday, stunningly, said any ceasefire they would favor must allow Hezbollah “to claim some sort of victory.” That such confusion has not gained traction among American Jews or, for that matter, on the Christian right in this country is testament to the bond of shared values between America and Israel. Those values have a base in something higher than the false god of international law before whom Kenneth Roth has brought a once-idealistic institution so low.
http://www.nysun.com/editorials/roths-false-god/37473


Human Rights Hypocrites
– Aug 29, 2006 – Hezbollah occasionally did store weapons in or near civilian homes and fighters placed rocket launchers within populated areas or near U.N. observers, which … Human Rights Watch investigated some two dozen bombing incidents in Lebanon involving a third of the civilians who by then had been killed.

http://www.peacewithrealism.org/headline/hrw01.htm

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The comment ‘rejected’ by pro-Arab racism of the HuffPost’s moderator

June 30, 2011

The comment ‘rejected’ by pro-Arab racism of the HuffPost’s moderator

My friend tried to post the following, it was removed by the moderaotr of the “objective” HuffingtonPost:

How dare you attack this [SWC] humane organization personally? So much for your Arabic style of buzzwords like “graveyards” as if we don’t know who causes Arab civiian deaths. When is there going to be an outcry in the Arab world against Hamas/Hezbollah use of civilians to make sure Arab kids die in order to damn the Zionists? The same goes to the racist Arab “apartheid” slur on Israel’s true democracy where Arabs have more than equal rights, when you count the favoritism of the ‘affirnative action’ system in Israel.

This, in reply to the Arab propagandist: “sas”: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/sas/hypocrisy-on-parade-delta_b_886309_94833059.html

Twisted Zakaria compares Genocidal “Palestinians” [Hamas] to IRA

May 27, 2011

Twisted Zakaria compares Genocidal “Palestinians” [Hamas] to IRA

He just spinned on CNN, about his anti Israel column in the lefty ‘Washington Post’ (damning B. Netanyahu, who was rightfully cheered at in Congress) answering to Elliot Spitzer (The Arena [http://inthearena.blogs.cnn.com/]) about Israel’s reservation not to negotiate with the Palestinian Arabs that have just joined “unity” Fatah-Hamas, as Hamas is a terrorist organization committed to violence, Fareed’s answer was, so was the IRA…

Not mentioning the vast difference between a small group of terror VS the Palestinians who are committed to annihilation of Jews under Islamic banner and under Arabism, from the Mufti in the 1920s through Arafat and through Hamas’ on declarations.


Some examples:

A Hamas sermon on sloughtering the Jews
http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/malam_multimedia/English/eng_n/html/hamas_e_sermon.htm

In February 2010 report: ‘Fatah/PA TV Nazi-Like Sermon: “Fight The Jews & Kill Them — They Are Enemies Of Humanity & Allah”’

http://www.zoa.org/sitedocuments/pressrelease_view.asp?pressreleaseID=1809

The intended creation of a blurry picture between violence (as horrific as it is) to someone committed to total annihilation is a usual anti-Israel bigoted trick.

Note: The IRA never has a [declared] campaign of annihilating the British people as a whole.


Hamas Video: We Will Drink the Blood of the Jews
http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2006/02/hamas_we_will_d.php

Biased CNN explains as “news” why Palestinians aim at children

December 22, 2010

Biased CNN explains as “news” why Palestinians aim at children


At the CNN news ticker the following title of “news” appeared today (Dec. 21, 2010): “5 hurt in rocket fire,  retaliation in southern Israel” as well as on the page: http://edition.cnn.com/MIDDLEEAST  .


The HTML copied:

<li><a href=”/2010/WORLD/meast/12/21/israel.rocket.fire/index.html”>5 hurt in rocket fire, retaliation, in southern Israel</a>       </li>


Though when clicking on the actual link, the language is different.
http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/meast/12/21/israel.rocket.fire/index.html


That exact title was copied automatically on those that subscribe to CNN’s feeds, e. g.: http://news.vivasoft.hu/the-news/17842-5-hurt-in-rocket-fire,-retaliation-in-southern-israel.html and http://359online.com/5-hurt-in-rocket-fire-retaliation-in-southern-israel/



This fits very well with the Islamists-appeasement policy that whatever they do, it’s just a reaction, when in fact the Arab Palestinians are always initiating the attack aimed at innocent Israelis at their homes or at kindergartens when the children are gathered there, or/and practicing the use of its own civilians.


The hidden message behind the headline which attempts almost to equate the two sides is so outrageous, as if there’s some kind of moral equivalence between those that seek death and destruction for all and Israelis that struggle so hard to defend lives. So is the naiive “understanding” that when Hamas says it does something as a “retaliation,” we should simply “believe” it. Since when is news media a mouthpiece for terrorists? No one should buy into it as a fact, or anything else beyond a Hamas’ propaganda argument. Neither CNN, nor anyone else can assert what is a “retaliation” and what is in fact, an excuse.


According to this twisted CNN view it’s all a game, they are just both fighting each other, nothing about Israelis defending citizens from Palestinians seeking civilians as targets, or/and children when they go to school. Note also CNN’s general ommission of the Israeli exact location ‘KINDERGARTEN’ repeatedly a target


Moreover, it entails a horrific cheapening of Israeli lives, that they’re hurt “only because of some retaliation” thing.


Again and again, CNN shows its real “news” colors, when its more of an opinion medium.


How about a simple non-opinionated news headline: “Palestinians fire at Israeli homes,” or “Palestinians attack Israeli kindergartens, again.” The truth for a change!

News Samples:

Rocket explodes near Israeli kindergarten‎
21 (UPI) — A Qassam rocket exploded near a kibbutz kindergarten in the Ashkelon Coastal regional council Tuesday morning, the Israeli army said.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2010/12/21/Rocket-explodes-near-Israeli-kindergarten/UPI-11441292936139/

Qassam explodes near kindergarten – Israel News, Ynetnews
Dec 21, 2010 … News: Rocket hits kibbutz in Ashkelon Coast Regional Council. Girl, 14, lightly injured by shrapnel; several people suffer from shock, …

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4002195,00.html</p

Support for Israel near record high, Gallup Poll shows’

August 20, 2010

Support for Israel near record high, Gallup Poll shows’ http://www.thejerusalemconnection.us/blog/2010/07/15/support-for-israel-near-record-high-gallup-poll-shows.html
 
‘A logical feeling towards: ISRAEL VS BIGOTED ARAB ISLAMIC GENOCIDE PLAN’

So much for flotilla and other Islamic and racist-Arab propaganda constant tired actions to cast Israel’s fight for survival in a negative light, with baseless bombastic propaganda terminology of ‘racist/apartheid/blah-blah.’

Racist hypocritic Arabism – “moderate” UAE model

August 6, 2010

Racist hypocritic Arabism – “moderate” UAE modelTypical hypocritic of racist Arabism, when Israel does it to defend its babies from racist Arab attacks who aim at any Jews – for being Jews… its called “apartheid” and [falsely] “racist”, but when bigoted Arabs do it its “pure national security.”

Dubai to use profiling to detect Israeli arrivals http://arabnews.com/middleeast/article24752.ece

 

Racist Arabia, 2009 Poll: 90% of middle east views Jews unfavorably http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=168176.

Re: racist Arab Helen Thomas, Arab-Palestinians get back to ARABIA where they came from?

June 6, 2010

Re: Arab Helen Thomas, Arab-Palestinians get back to ARABIA where they came from?

"She should lose her job over this," Fleischer said in an email. "As someone who is Jewish, and as someone who worked with her and used to like her, I find this appalling."  

"She is advocating religious cleansing. How can Hearst stand by her? If a journalist, or a columnist, said the same thing about blacks or Hispanics, they would already have lost their jobs."  

Thomas knows that she could never say the blacks should go back to Africa or the Hispanics should go back to Mexico, she would ruin her over-celebrated reputation as the "dean" of the White House press corps.  
newsb...


What if someone would copy this Arab woman Helen Thomas, and has said that the Arab ‘Palestinians’ should get the heck out of Judea & go back to Arabia?  

Not even a Zionist Jew would say that in America announcing that in public, you know why? because the most "moderate" Arab is more racist, far more bigoted and extreme than the most radical Zionist can ever be.

—-

[Fake nation] The Arab immigrants that started to call themselves "Palestinians"  

The Arab immigrants — who they, their children/grandchildren today are called "palestinians" mainly since the 1960’s

The Arabs in the Holy Land – Natives or Aliens? Unknown to most of the world population, the origin of the "Palestinian" Arabs’ claim to the Holy Land spans …
http://www.ldolphin.org/palestinians.html
 
The True Identity of the So-called Palestinians.
The current myth is that these Arabs were long established in "Palestine", until the Jews came and "displaced" them. The fact is, that recent Arab immigration into the Land of Israel displaced the Jews. That the massive increase in Arab population was very recent is attested by the ruling of the United Nations: That any Arab who had lived in the Holy Land for two years and then left in 1948 qualifies as a "Palestinian refugee".
http://www.imninalu.net/myths-pals.htm

From Time Immemorial – Evidence of Unrecorded Arab Immigration 9 Fred M. Gottheil, "Arab Immigration into Pre-State Israel: 1922-1931″
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2139
 
But as she continued, the anomaly of the Palestinians "began to nag and … Thanks to British unconcern, Arab immigrants were generally left alone and …
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/1110

By 1864, a clear-cut Jewish majority emerged in Jerusalem – more than half a century before the arrival of the British Empire and the League of Nations Mandate. During the years that the Jewish presence in Eretz Israel was restored, a huge Arab population influx transpired as Arab immigrants sought to take advantage of higher wages and economic opportunities that resulted from Jewish settlement in the land. President Roosevelt concluded in 1939 that "Arab immigration into Palestine since 1921 has vastly exceeded the total Jewish immigration during the whole period."  
http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp507.htm

Britain’s naval and political reaction to the illegal immigration of Jews to Palestine, 1945-1948, Fritz Liebreich, Routledge, 2005, ISBN 0714656372, 9780714656373, [p. 30]

The Determinants of British Policy… Matters improved with the departure of Lieutenant General Sir Louis Bols on 30 May 1920, the ending of the military adminidstration and the appointment of Sir Samuel as the first British High Commisioner for Palestine. However, under constant pressure from British pro-Arab spokesmen and officials, relations between Britian and the Jewish Zionists deteriorated steadily.
A Very good exaple of virtuallly general anti-Zionist bias of successsive British mandatory adiminstrations would be the virtual continuation of the Ottoman policy of supporting or at least condoning non-Jewish illegal [p. 31] immigration to Palestine. In contrast to the near universal and general condemntation and confrontation with Jewish illegal immigration.
As a buffer against the Bedouin the Ottomans had already brought the first Circassians from the Caucasus to Palestine in 1878. These truculant habitual warriors had been settled by the Turks as irregular garrisons on the desert fringes, allowing them to occupy and cultivate land, and thus hold back the nomad Arabs, who neither paid tax nor tilled the land at any time. Egyptian immigrants were settled by Ibrahim Pasha in Jaffa, Acre, Nablus and Beisan, Moors and Kurds settled in Safed, while the Arab tribes of the Wulda, Bu Sheille, Lheib and Adwquat, having been defeated in tribal wars and raids, entered Palestine at about the same time as the first Jewish settlers arrived. These Arabs cannot be considered indigenous to the land and neither can the Turks, Kurds, Moors, Algerians, Egyptians and Circassians imported by the Turks as aprotective force. The virtually generally accepted British claim of an overwhelming Arab indigenous population, settled for a thousand years in a crowded Palestine, whe were in danger of being swamped and displaced by the Jews was, therefore, considered by the more extreme Zionists to be a rewriting of history.
Illegal Jewish immigration was always fastidiously reported by successive British administrations, while the very considerable Arab illegal immigration was only addressed when their detection has became flagrant. The British Mandatory authorities whose tasks included recording the comings and goings in Palestine, was occasionally forced to mention the illegal Arab immigration, but only when the battle became too prevalent. The movement was always underestimated, minimised and considered casual:  

In addition to increase in recorded immigration, a number of persons are known to enter Palestine illegally from both adjacent and European countries and remain there permanently.
Considerable Arab immigration was indeed proceeding without restriction or record from such areas as Syria, Egypt, Trans-Jordan and Lebanon. There has been some immigration from the surrounding territories, which, since it avoids the frontier controls, is not recorded.
Jewish illegal immigration was minutely detailed and meticulously recorded but all references to Arab illegal immigration were, perhaps deliberately, obscured. The preponderant concentration on the Jewish illegal immigration overwhelemd and negated all record of the parallel Arab traffic.
Tewfik Bey al-Haurani, Governer of the Hauran, was quoted as saying, ‘In the last few months from 30,000 to 36,000 Hauranese Syrians have entered Palestine and settled there.’  
http://books.google.com/books?id=LsgnW34jp90C&pg=PA31

Who are the Palestinians and who is occupying what?
[…]
The word plesheth meant migratory referring to the migration of the Philistines into the sea coast of Israel. So the Palestinians of 3000 years ago were, in fact, the Philistines. The Philistines were not native to Israel, in fact, as their name implies, they came from somewhere else. Most scholars agree that they came from the Greek Islands, most likely Crete. Obviously, they did not speak Arabic and they were not Semitic like the Jews and Arabs. The Arabs came from guess where?–Arabia.  
cfp...

The Canaanites disappeared from the face of the earth three millennia ago…
Even the Palestinians themselves have acknowledged their association with the region came long after the Jews… Over the last 2,000 years, there have been massive invasions that killed off most of the local people (e.g., the Crusades), migrations, the plague, and other manmade or natural disasters. The entire local population was replaced many times over. During the British mandate alone, more than 100,000 Arabs emigrated from neighboring countries and are today considered Palestinians.  

By contrast, no serious historian questions the more than 3,000-year-old Jewish connection to the Land of Israel, or the modern Jewish people’s relation to the ancient Hebrews.  

"…[the Palestinian Arabs’] basic sense of corporate historic identity was, at different levels, Muslim or Arab or – for some – Syrian; it is significant that even by the end of the Mandate in 1948, after thirty years of separate Palestinian political existence, there were virtually no books in Arabic on the history of Palestine.."
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths/mf1.html

"PALESTINE" – Never an Arab Country
[…]
there was no geopolitical entity called "Palestine," no Arab nation ever set historical roots on this soil and no national claim was ever made to the territory by any national group other than the Jews.
[…]
Under the Mandate, the Jewish population continued to grow but while their immigration was progressively restricted, that of Moslems from the surrounding countries (Syria and Jordan) was completely free. As a result, attracted by the Jewish development of the country, the Moslem population increased rapidly and had attained majority by 1947. Palestinian Arabs Never a Nation "Palestinian" Arab nationalism today is a product of recent political and religious currents. Until the 1920’s no such national community had even existed in "Palestine". This is why both the Balfour Declaration and the League of Nations Mandate charged the Jews of the National Home with guaranteeing the civil and religious rights of other inhabitants. No mention was made of other national rights of other inhabitants, as it was recognized that the only national claim to the area was that made by the Jews.  
christian...

Palestinian people do not exist! They love to say her statement is patently false – an intentional lie, … The Palestinian people does not exist.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=28222

The True Identity of the So-called Palestinians

In this essay I would like to present the true origin and identity of the Arab people commonly known as "Palestinians", and the widespread myths surrounding them. This research is intended to be completely neutral and objective, based on historic and archaeological evidences as well as other documents, including Arab sources, and quoting statements by authoritative Islamic personalities.
There are some modern myths -or more exactly, lies- that we can hear everyday through the mass-media as if they were true, of course, hiding the actual truth. For example, whenever the Temple Mount or Jerusalem are mentioned, it is usually remarked that is "the third holy place for muslims", but why it is never said that is the FIRST Holy Place for Jews? It sounds like an utterly biased information!

In order to make this essay better comprehensible, it will be presented in two units:  
·1) Myths and facts concerning the origin and identity of the so-called Palestinians;  
·2) Myths and facts regarding Jerusalem and the Land of Israel.

I – Origin and identity of the so-called Palestinians  
Palestinians are the newest of all the peoples on the face of the Earth, and began to exist in a single day by a kind of supernatural phenomenon that is unique in the whole history of mankind, as it is witnessed by Walid Shoebat, a former PLO terrorist that acknowledged the lie he was fighting for and the truth he was fighting against:  
"Why is it that on June 4th 1967 I was a Jordanian and overnight I became a Palestinian?" "We did not particularly mind Jordanian rule. The teaching of the destruction of Israel was a definite part of the curriculum, but we considered ourselves Jordanian until the Jews returned to Jerusalem. Then all of the sudden we were Palestinians – they removed the star from the Jordanian flag and all at once we had a Palestinian flag". "When I finally realized the lies and myths I was taught, it is my duty as a righteous person to speak out".
This declaration by a true "Palestinian" should have some significance for a sincerely neutral observer. Indeed, there is no such a thing like a Palestinian people, or a Palestinian culture, or a Palestinian language, or a Palestinian history. There has never been any Palestinian state, neither any Palestinian archaeological find nor coinage. The present-day "Palestinians" are an Arab people, with Arab culture, Arabic language and Arab history. They have their own Arab states from where they came into the Land of Israel about one century ago to contrast the Jewish immigration. That is the historical truth. They were Jordanians (another recent British invention, as there has never been any people known as "Jordanians"), and after the Six-Day War in which Israel utterly defeated the coalition of nine Arab states and took legitimate possession of Judea and Samaria, the Arab dwellers in those regions underwent a kind of anthropological miracle and discovered that they were Palestinians – something they did not know the day before. Of course, these people having a new identity had to build themselves a history, namely, had to steal some others’ history, and the only way that the victims of the theft would not complain is if those victims do no longer exist. Therefore, the Palestinian leaders claimed two contradictory lineages from ancient peoples that inhabited in the Land of Israel: the Canaanites and the Philistines. Let us consider both of them before going on with the Palestinian issue.  
http://www.imninalu.net/myths-pals.htm

The Myth Of The Palestinian People – The answer is that the myth of the Palestinian People serves as the justification for Arab occupation of the Land of Israel. While the Arabs already possess 21 sovereign countries of their own (more than any other single people on earth) and control a land mass 800 times the size of the Land of Israel, this is apparently not enough for them. They therefore feel the need to rob the Jews of their one and only country, one of the smallest on the planet. Unfortunately, many people ignorant of the history of the region, including much of the world media, are only too willing to help.  
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=747

All Things Beautiful: The Myth Of Palestine, Whenever there were Arab riots, Jewish immigration was restricted…
all...

The Smoking Gun: Arab Immigration into Palestine, 1922-1931 – Middle East Quarterly.
http://www.meforum.org/article/522

In the early 19th century, Palestine was a backward, neglected province of the Ottoman Empire. Travelers to Palestine from the Western world left records of what they saw there. The theme throughout their reports is dismal: The land was empty, neglected, abandoned, desolate, fallen into ruins.

In Jerusalem, all reports and journals of travelers, pilgrims and government representatives during these years, repeatedly record the poverty, filth and neglect and the desolate nature of the countryside. Early photographs show lepers in rags and dilapidated buildings. Jerusalem was surrounded by marauding bands of Bedouin Arabs and had to close her gates at nightfall and reopen them at first light, a practice that was similar in Biblical times.
 
Some quotes from the writings of these visitors before modern times:
 
Nothing there [Jerusalem] to be seen but a little of the old walls which is yet remaining and all the rest is grass, moss and weeds. [English pilgrim in 1590]
 
The country is in a considerable degree empty of inhabitants and therefore its greatest need is of a body of population. [British consul in 1857]
 
There is not a solitary village throughout its whole extent [valley of Jezreel] — not for 30 miles in either direction… One may ride ten miles hereabouts and not see ten human beings. … For the sort of solitude to make one dreary, come to Galilee … Nazareth is forlorn … Jericho lies a moldering ruin … Bethlehem and Bethany, in their poverty and humiliation… untenanted by any living creature… A desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds … a silent, mournful expanse … a desolation … We never saw a human being on the whole route … Hardly a tree or shrub anywhere. Even the olive tree and the cactus, those fast friends of a worthless soil had almost deserted the country … Of all the lands there are for dismal scenery Palestine must be the prince. The hills barren and dull, the valleys unsightly deserts [inhabited by] swarms of beggars with ghastly sores and malformations. Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes … desolate and unlovely … [Mark Twain, The Innocents Abroad, 1867]  
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_early_palestine_zionists_impact.php
 
WHY DID THE ARABS FLEE IN 1948? "The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist … they were not indigenous. That Palestine was not their ancient homeland.
http://www.shalomjerusalem.com/jerusalem/jerusalem100.html

The myth of the Palestinian People, To portray themselves as indigenous, Arab settlers adopted the name of an … State of Israel an independent Arab Palestinian state existed in its place. …
http://www.israelinsider.com/views/articles/views_0240.htm
 
Film to ‘dispel Arab propaganda’ … disguising the Arab immigrants as "indigenous native Palestinian …
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27661
 
Mahmoud Abbas Admits Palestinian Arabs Are Not Indigenous. From a speech given to the PLO Central … The Difference Between Palestinian Arab Moderates . …
http://primerct.blogspot.com/2007/06/mahmoud-abbas-admits-palestinian-arabs.html
 
On a visit to the Ottoman-controlled Holy Land in 1860, Mark Twain described it as "the prince of desolation." "The hills are barren… the valleys unsightly deserts… peopled by swarms of beggars struck with ghastly sores and malformations… Palestine sits in sackcloth and ashes… only the music of angels could charm its shrubs and flowers again into life."
 
Other writers and artists visiting the Holy Land (chiefly from Britain and Germany) — as well as geographers, archeologists, and cartographers — were equally stunned by its utter desolation.
 
It was only toward the end of the 18th century, when a growing stream of Jewish immigrants rehabilitated the land — draining swamps, reclaiming deserts, and controlling the diseases (chiefly malaria) — that a decimated Arab population began increasing. The resuscitation of the land by the Jews and the economic opportunity they created brought an influx of Arab immigrants from dirt-poor neighboring Arab states to swell the number of Arabs in Palestine, so that by the turn of the century there were about 250,000 Arab Muslims and 150,00 Jews living there. 100,000 Christians and others
 
It was in fact British colonial machinations that turned initial Arab acceptance of a Jewish homeland in British-protected Palestine into unmitigated and disastrous hostility. British behavior in the Middle East in general, and in Palestine in particular, was common colonial practice: divide and rule. In India, it enabled the British to subdue the subcontinent with few troops by pitting hostile segments of the indigenous population against each other. They employed this strategy in Palestine too.
 
From the very first days of the mandate, a group of very influential British officials in the Colonial and the War Offices, who wanted to maintain control over the land and to prevent the establishment of an independent Jewish national home, started undermining their government’s efforts to fulfill its obligation toward the Jews. These British officials, many of them avowed anti-Semites, fanned Arab resentment over broken British promises to make the Arabian chieftain, Faisal, king of Damascus and Syria, and redirected it against Jewish aspirations in Palestine.
 
Indeed, their naming the mandate over the Holy Land "Palestine," rather than the land of Israel, was a deliberate effort to obliterate the Jewish connection to the land by calling it by its Roman name. They also, in 1923, unilaterally removed from the original mandatory area all the land east of the Jordan River-75 percent of the territory promised to the Jews — and gave it to the Emir Abdullah of Arabia, Faisal’s brother, in compensation to the Hashemite family for other broken promises. They did so despite objections from the League of Nations. The small area that had been designated as a home for the Jews was thus reduced to a mere sliver.
 
A distinct Palestinian Arab nationalism evolved only after the dream of an Arab Syrian kingdom — the brainchild of T. E. Lawrence — was shattered when the French evicted his protégé, the Emir Faisal, from Damascus in 1920. Only then did the South Syrian Arabs living under Britain’s Palestine mandate separate themselves from Syria and start defining themselves as Palestinians. The process was accelerated by their growing negative reaction to the League of Nations’ designation of Palestine as a Jewish national home.
 
The British helped make hostility to Zionism the defining issue of local Arab politics, and assisted in its exploitation as a lethal weapon in bloody Arab inter-clan struggles for dominance. Muslim clerics and Arab effendis exploited hostility against the Jews, always convenient scapegoats, to deflect the rage of their destitute, exploited people.
 
The British appointed an extremely radical upstart politician, Hajj Amin al-Hussieni, with a record of violence and incitement, as chief mufti of Jerusalem. They gave him the authority of a spiritual leader to the Arabs, and control of the considerable funds and properties managed by Muslim religious trusts. The mufti promptly proceeded to exploit these resources for his nefarious campaign against the Jews and against his Arab opponents — much as Arafat…
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-doron081402.asp
PALESTINIAN FALLACY  

by Judah Tzoref  

The verbal Jihad legitimizes all means of demagogical rhetoric, spiced with shameless deception, just as the military Jihad legitimizes all forms of atrocious terrorism to undermine the existence of Israel. In both pursuits, the intent is to advance the "holy" cause of denying the Jewish heritage. Pursuing the "glorious" tradition of verbal Jihad, some fervent advocates of the Palestinian cause contract 4,000 years of the unique Jewish bond with the Land of Israel to merely 500 hundred years of past Jewish kingdoms.  

The continuity of Jewish predominance within the Land of Israel was interrupted only by the Islamic conquest [1]. The Islamic occupation successfully accomplished ethnic cleansing of the Jewish community through displacement, expropriation and forced inundation of the Land of Israel by Arab immigrants (a proven historical fact). All historical, scientific and non-Jihadic findings attest to the predominant Jewish existence in the Land of Israel over 2,500 years (since Abraham up to the ethnic cleansing perpetrated by Islamic occupation). […]  

The absolute majority of the so-called Palestinians are descendants of the Twentieth Century Arab immigrants who searched for a rewarding chunk of the economical boom engendered by the returning Jews…  
http://www.think-israel.org/tzoref.pafallacy.html  

THE MYTH OF JEWISH COLONIALISM – IT’S TIME THE WORLD STOPPED SEEING MIDEAST CONFLICT THROUGH DISTORTED EUROCENTRIC LENS 14 December 2009 …The notion of ‘occupation’ and the use of the word ‘settlers’ reinforce the concept of Israeli ‘colonisation’ of ‘Arab’ land. Aside from assuming that the Palestinians must be the true natives because they look authentically ‘brown’,  
http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=52528

The arabs in Israel…. Israel was never an exclusively Arab country, although Arabic gradually …  
http://www.amichai.com/war/process/illegalarabs.htm

Jews are indigenous to the Palestine region and have lived there continuously for over 3,000 years

[…]

Zionists hoped to live in friendship and cooperation with the Arab population and believed that restoring the land would benefit everyone. Many Arabs welcomed this development, which also attracted Arab immigrants from … An estimated 25 percent to 37 percent of immigrants to pre-state Israel were Arabs, not Jews
rebirth

ARAB APARTHEID AGAINST JEWS – THE ‘PLAN’

May 3, 2010

As Jonathan Tobin points out, the official goal of the Middle East “peace process” is a “two-state solution”, in one of which Muslims live alongsidews and have voting rights and representation in the legislature, while in the other
there are no Jews at all and, as in “moderate” Jordan, to sell your house to a Jew is a crime punishable by death. There goes the neighborhood, right? When the western campus left holds its annual “Israeli Apartheid Week”, presumably it’s in philosophical support of the notion that you don’t need to run an “apartheid” system if you just get rid of everyone who’s not like you.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YmMzNzVkNTEwZDA1YTk5MmMxMTcyZTVkYTAyZTA1YjE=
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,